When was the Aspis/ Hoplon phased out ?

[PMBardunias]

The thyreos, according to several literary references, could be a tough and maneuverable shield. For most troops, it was better suited than a round shield because it provided more coverage for the body, which meant that if you couldn't afford body armour you could at least receive a decent amount of protection. It was also effective in close combat, as its grip allowed the bearer to move dynamically to defend himself but also to use the boss offensively against opponents. This is why it became so popular in the last three centuries BC pretty much everywhere in the Old World.

I agree with all of this, but in opposition is Plutarch phillipoemen 9 (what Paul referred to above):

9 In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used bucklers which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body;

I think Paul hit upon the answer, they are "too narrow" only in the sense that they cannot overlap as well. But I must admit that some thureos are very narrow at top and bottom, more diamond than square or oval shaped. In any case, as you note, the key is a dynamic use of the shield. Holding any shield at arms length in the hand greatly improves its coverage. A quick and easy test of this property of distance from the body is to simply shine a flashlight on the shield at each position and see how the shadow increases. But this is indivudual protection and requires room to move.

In Greece, however, the primary problem was that they changed to the thyreos, but didn't change tactics. Why? I suspect it is because the states of Greece (which, other than Sparta, were federal leagues) were lacking in resources, and so they decided to change to an economical shield type (since the Argive shield probably wasn't cheap to make) which gave them more bang for their buck in that they could arm both battle-line troops and garrison and patrol troops with it. But if they really wanted to make good use of the thyreos, they would have had to re-train, and continue to train, their troops, and they probably simply didn't have the resources available to do that.

I'm not sure I can sign on to that one. Surely behavioral modification is much cheaper than investment in hardware. I would perhaps chalk it up to a lack of training through apathy not cost- light infantry often requires more training to keep order than men lined up in ranks.

I don't believe I implied this at all, merely pointing out 'incidently' that it could be so used, as an aside from the text.

I projected my thought onto you! Because a pelta had a porpax and an aspis was often carried by a "strap" when not in combat, I believe the original intent of the quote was to show that the pelta and arm with sarissa were all supported by the ochane. To me the only other interpretation that make sense is that the shield simply hangs from the ochane in battle and is not on the arm. I find this unlikely for many reasons.

I have wondered about the role of misthophoroi in the adoption of the thureos and longche/javelins. If the varous macedonian employers were hiring trrops to compliment their own heavy sarissaphoroi, the market may have driven the troop types opened to greeks- many of whom ended up in garrison duty if I recall correctly. Didn't something like this happen with the Romans and their auxillae?

I should note that for those so inclined, the inability of hoplites to regularly enter othismos with sarissaphoroi is an obvious reason for the adoption of a new, less pecialized, shield type. Instead Thureophoroi became something like the American heavy frigates- able to defeat all the normal "lights" in close combat and get out of the way of the true "heavies" and throw things at them.